NCJ Number
127164
Journal
Law and Society Review Volume: 24 Issue: 3 Dated: (1990) Pages: 781-805
Date Published
1990
Length
25 pages
Annotation
The article considers the paradox that if courts are autonomous how will they support those in power, and if they consistently support the rulers, how do they maintain their own legitimacy. Disputes between the Israeli government and the Israeli Supreme Court are used to examine how this paradox works; landmark decisions in which the Court reversed governmental decisions are presented.
Abstract
Courts are an integral part of the State, yet they proclaim to be outside or above the State. Legitimacy in relation to courts is discussed and is used to refer to perceptions that the political and legal orders are rightly constituted and deserve to be maintained. The landmark court decisions involve Israeli policies in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and are the only cases in which those policies have been successfully challenged. The decisions are presented in detail and in the context of other decisions in which governmental actions in the occupied territories have been upheld. The landmark cases have enhanced the Supreme Court's legitimacy as an impartial body and are seen as consequently legitimizing Israeli rule over those territories. The cases dealt with land confiscations, deportees, freedom of the press, and family reunions. Other areas, cases, and courts are examined in light of the paradox, particularly the United States Supreme Court. 5 statutes cited, 30 cases cited, 1 appendix, 10 footnotes, and 65 references (Author abstract modified)